Earlier posts have looked at some side issues; and maybe even some matters that actually ought to be central issues, if only the time, money, and interest in them could somehow be found. For instance, who should be in charge of defining and identifying an actual disease condition? When society makes decisions about who is responsible for the problem, and who should qualify for free treatment or compensation, to be paid for by charitable or publicly funded sources, these matters become significant.

The general administrative task would also include answering such questions as: Which citizens should be compelled to accept treatment for any physical or mental or behavioral disorder — whether they want it or not? Who should be punished for not seeking or accepting treatment of individual differences that perhaps should not even be classified as illnesses?

If parents are deemed responsible for turning their child into an addict who — years later, one way or another — costs society a few million dollars, should that be a crime with no statute of limitations? If that child at age 25 is a hardcore addict, should the parents be retroactively charged with that crime, and made to reimburse society for putting their child through rehab?

A previous post quoted a line from a Gil Scott-Heron lyric, about home. It says, “I left three days ago but no one seems to know I’m gone,” and there are some things to be said about that sentiment. First, of course, the age of the offspring would be important. If it’s a 15-year-old girl who has been hanging out with a bunch of shady characters, then certainly, for parents to worry would be appropriate.

If it’s a 25-year-old son who lives in the basement apartment with a separate entrance, because he can’t afford his own place, why would his non-appearance for three days be a cause for alarm? Maybe he met a nice woman and got lucky. Maybe he’s been helping a friend move, and thinks his parents are vastly overreacting when he shows up after a half-week absence.

The point here being, how much blame must parents shoulder, and why, and for how long? Some kids go off the rails because of parental indifference and neglect — while others mentally collapse beneath a smothering level of parental over-involvement. And amongst those particular fathers and mothers and those particular daughters and sons, a lot of different results may accrue — from the kid becoming a junkie, to the kid becoming a remarkably self-directed and self-realized example of humanity.

Maybe the lesson here is that there is no such thing in life as “one size fits all.” Looking around amongst personal acquaintances, one can always find incredible paradoxes and wildly unpredictable outcomes. Who would have guessed that this cousin, with those irresponsible parents, would some day become a national hero? Who could have predicted that this friend, with an upbringing that seemed impeccable in every way, would turn out to be such an irredeemable mess?

A recent post teased the idea that Professor Owen Flanagan might have observed a thing or two about addiction, responsibility, and blame. That piece referenced the author’s double-decade fling with “booze and benzos” which “ended in a grave repetitive soul-sickness, in a very-near-death experience.”

He describes the vigilance required to hide his condition “from the police, friends or loved ones who might interfere with my insanity.” In addition to being intimately involved with substances himself, he experienced the close acquaintance of many, many other addicted people. About a quarter of a century ago, Flanagan notes, the addiction treatment industry and the media started to call addiction a “brain disease.” But he and most of his acquaintances disagree with that terminology, and here is a relevant quotation:

Scientists and psychologists studying addiction have pointed to important circuits in at least 18 different brain areas, but they have not identified a single neural syndrome or profile that might be the disease of addiction.

Where is the author going with this? To a very interesting place, and his viewpoint is worth absorbing. The analogy he makes is: If addiction were a brain disease, it would be like Type 1 diabetes, which a person cannot help. But….

If you start to exhibit signs of Type 2 diabetes, you can deal with it by exercising and eating better. Similarly, if you’re an addict, you can stop using and in that way put whatever obsession and craving you experience, assuming these are among your symptoms, into hibernation or remission.

Among his many publications, Prof. Flanagan has published a very interesting book called What Is It Like to Be an Addict?: Understanding Substance Abuse.

Written by Pat Hartman. First published December 5, 2025.

Source:

“People Say Addiction Is a Disease. Mine Wasn’t.,” MSN.com, January 9, 2025.

Image Copyright: johnhain/Pixabay.